Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Y3 A Dramatically Scaled Up 787?  
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 19574 times:

There's been some speculation over time that the 737 replacement might be a scaled down 787. Is it unrealistic to believe that Y3 might be a dramatically scaled up 787, significantly wider fuselage, longer (and perhaps redesigned) wings, larger engines, etc.?


Dare to dream; dream big!
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 19461 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Thread starter):
There's been some speculation over time that the 737 replacement might be a scaled down 787. Is it unrealistic to believe that Y3 might be a dramatically scaled up 787, significantly wider fuselage, longer (and perhaps redesigned) wings, larger engines, etc.?

Any new Boeing airplane is going to build on the materials, aerodynamics, and systems knowledge developed from the 787.

But otherwise, no. Boeing isn't going to take the 787 drawings and just scale up/down 20%, 30%, etc like you would on a copy machine. It's also way too early to tell what shape Y1 or Y3 will take. They might not EIS for another 10-15 years, in which case significantly improved technology will be available.


User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 19281 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
It's also way too early to tell what shape Y1 or Y3 will take. They might not EIS for another 10-15 years, in which case significantly improved technology will be available.

I remember just a few years ago we were expecting EIS for Y1 in 2012/2013. How times have changed.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 19206 times:

Is it impossible to make it as similar to the 787 as the 757 are to the 767? That way they can share the same crew, and share some systems. That might make the airlines more loyal to the OEM  


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 18893 times:

Since the decision to build the 748i and (as a result) re-wing the 777 (as Boeing have publically"suggested" they will). Y3 is very firmly on the back burner. (20 years?).Both manufacturers can (now) see that the VLA market is about one third of what it was 10 years ago. Y3 was supposed to be a 777/747 replacement.You will next see a 777NG (as asked for by at least 3 leading airlines).

Y1 is also on the backburner now.The decision whether (when?) to re-engine the 737/320 is imminent.The public time table for Y1 launch is now 2024 last time I looked.

So alot of water will have passed under the technology bridge since the 787, thats not to say it won't still be cutting edge then - but who knows!


User currently offlineArabAirX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 18800 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
Since the decision to build the 748i and (as a result) re-wing the 777

The 777 rewing was an option amongst others being considered. I dont recall a decision being made?


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 18146 times:

Unless the 777 dramatically looses to the A350 there wont be a Y3 before the mid 20s. And a 777NG (well, a 77W NG, as the 772 versions will be rendered largely obsolete by the 787) might correct most (economical) disadvantages the 77W will have against the A350s. I guess there will be a 77W NG by around 2016-18, with new engines and maybe a "new" wing. When that´s done, technology will have advanced. A Y3 should be way ahead of a 787 in this regard, it must be a product fit for the 2030s and 2040s when latest today´s fuels will become rationed and unaffordable.

A 737 replacement seems more urgent. The 737 NG isnt the freshest product out there (as is the A320 too), and this time another "NG" wont do. There are some who say the 747 in general is old, despite the new 748. If so, much more so the 737 should have no future in such people´s minds. Its a shame the most sold airliner types are the oldest. The A320 even uses engines developed in the 80s. I´m surprised, and disappointed, that airlines don´t put as much pressure here as the do against the A340 which in a way is a more modern aircraft, but sadly dying sooner.


User currently offlineFleabyte From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 18136 times:

I want to hear what stich says

User currently offlineFleabyte From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 17898 times:

Why should not Airbus or Boeing or both together with the Russians, Japanese and Chinese, Brasilians, Canadians, Indians, Turks, Aussies make the next Y3 a leapfrog blended wing body design for commercial and military as a tanker, cargo electronic warfare aircraft etc? There is so much government funding in aircarft development already. Like F16 program, assembled is 30 countries as a basic generic composite airframe - nothing too secret about that part. I think this will happen. And it will use alternative bio-based fuels. Let the free market fight it out for the A320/737 replacement, but let world capital fund a leapfrog for the (747/777/A340/A350old big/old A380-800 after the 900 enters service) market, and a model of a new era of global coordination of resources. 2020

User currently offlineArabAirX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 17902 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 6):
A 737 replacement seems more urgent. The 737 NG isnt the freshest product out there (as is the A320 too), and this time another "NG" wont do.

Both A320 and 737 are selling very well, deliveries are strong too. Only natural to see updates to them both, however, the sense of "urgency" is balanced by the attempts to achieve greater economic efficiency  


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 17735 times:

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 9):
by the attempts to achieve greater economic efficiency

Thats what I meant. Airlines look at economics with the microscope when it comes to larger aircraft, and anything older than 10 years is ignored in their beancounters minds, but seem happy with late-80s/mid-90s technology when it comes to the bread-and-butter jets. Its very odd. Very, very odd.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 17671 times:

Replying to post 5.No you are right, they have not made a decision.But a Boeing exec stated a couple of weeks ago that "the" option they were looking at was rewinging.Whether thats a 737/748 style rewing or a totally new one was not specified.(Clearly the GE90 would also need a facelift - for Rolls (200er only for legal reasons) its a straight TXWB of course).

My guess (considering the 748 is now a fact and therefore Y3 is decades away) would be a scaled (not photoenlarged) copy of the 787 wing - which appears to be exceding its targets as we speak - see different thread. The wing would need to meet the mission requirements of the 200er and the 300er as the 200 range/payload could be met - just-with a -10 787 if there was enough demand for such a niche aircraft.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 17023 times:

I was reading a post last week in which someone said how hard it is for a manufacturer to sell new frames because there have been no major advancements in technology in the last 20 years. Unfortunately the thread was locked before I got chance to post this.

I really don’t want to cause an all out A vs. B flame war, but in thinking about what the OP said I got to wondering what new technologies have been introduce recently and by who. I’m 100% sure I will be wrong here, in fact I’m hoping I am as it would be really depressing if I’m not; But I cannot find any significant "firsts" introduced by Boeing in commercial aviation,

Off the top of my head, Airbus were the first to ever use composites to construct aircraft sections, they introduced digital fly-by-wire and they set the standard with the A300 for the "large twin" - I know the 747 was the biggest for a while, but even it didn’t introduce anything new. It was just a big version of a conventional jet.

On the plus side this really does show how important the 787 is to Boeing, and perhaps why they have had so many problems with it. For the first time they are actually doing something new, they aren’t just copying the competition or releasing another version of a 50 year old concept.

I really hope the rest of the Y products are just as innovative, and they continue with a positive attitude to new technology rather than belittling the efforts of other companies. Or as in the case of the Queens crash and the composite empennage; lower the public’s confidence in the safety of modern manufacturing techniques.

I guess this also shows how critical competition is, without it there would be very little motivation to innovate and develop new products.

Edit: Just reading this again and it seems really negative, it's not ment that way. My point is really how important the 787 is, and im curious to what Boeing have done in the past, as I'm finding it really hard to find any details. I know there will be somethings, if not many.

[Edited 2010-02-22 05:00:47]

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 16957 times:

While I usually camp on the A side, I also see quite some firsts brought with the 777. Not only it was its first to be designed on a computer ( they shouldn't have updated the software since then), it also was the first long range twin, something Airbus came later only with the A332, and the 77W has reached in payload and range into a regime thought impüossible for twins a few years ago.

User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 16859 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 13):
While I usually camp on the A side, I also see quite some firsts brought with the 777. Not only it was its first to be designed on a computer ( they shouldn't have updated the software since then), it also was the first long range twin, something Airbus came later only with the A332, and the 77W has reached in payload and range into a regime thought impüossible for twins a few years ago.

Yeah thats a good one. I just wasnt sure if the 777 was the first in the world to be designed in computer or the first which Boeing did. As for the range,I wouldn’t call that new technology as such, but defiantly new thinking.


User currently offlineAeolus From Mexico, joined Aug 2007, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 16661 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
. It's also way too early to tell what shape Y1 or Y3 will take. They might not EIS for another 10-15 years, in which case significantly improved technology will be available

YI, Y3??? EIS? Can someone enlighten me? I'm lost, I don't know what any of these terms mean.

-Aeolus



Flying under the clouds above!
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 16547 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 6):
And a 777NG (well, a 77W NG, as the 772 versions will be rendered largely obsolete by the 787) might correct most (economical) disadvantages the 77W will have against the A350s. I guess there will be a 77W NG by around 2016-18, with new engines and maybe a "new" wing. When that´s done, technology will have advanced.

Maybe the 777-300(NG) will be the smaller with a 777-400(NG) as the larger of the two Tripple seven?   



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineSBGLexpat From Brazil, joined Oct 2007, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 16450 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 12):
I know the 747 was the biggest for a while, but even it didn%u2019t introduce anything new. It was just a big version of a conventional jet.

Certainly lately A has brought a lot of inovations to the industry, but ultimately, most jets today look exaclty the same:

fuselage, conventional empenage, sweptback wings and podded engines.

Almost boring and hard for the layman to differ between A x B. But that concept was brought about 56 years ago by the "Dash 80", and still rules.

No argue that the Comet was the first commercial jetliner in history, but the whole concept as we see today, with podded engines was a first in the Dash 80 (preceded by the B-47 Bomber). The big step was indeed "podded engines" hanging below a swept back wing in a conventional configuration.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 12):
I guess this also shows how critical competition is, without it there would be very little motivation to innovate and develop new products.

  

Very well said.

Regards

[Edited 2010-02-22 05:33:40]

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 16423 times:

Quoting oykie (Reply 16):
Maybe the 777-300(NG) will be the smaller with a 777-400(NG) as the larger of the two Tripple seven?

I dont know what you mean. Almost certain Boeing wont make the 777W longer. I remember reading that Boeing said the 77W is about the longest they could make a 777. Also they would shoot themselves in the foot by threatening the 748I.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 16370 times:

One thought about a 777NG: As the largest 787 will make the 772pax versions almost obsolete, why not build a 777-800 which would be a bit shorter than the 77W to replace both the 772 AND 773 versions. That would streamline the product range, save money and help the 748I AND the 787 programs.

User currently offlineTAN FLYR From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 16297 times:

Quoting Aeolus (Reply 15):
YI, Y3??? EIS? Can someone enlighten me? I'm lost, I don't know what any of these terms mean.

IIRC, Y1 is the "code Name" for a 737 replacement..Y3 for a 777/748 replacement.

EIS..Estimated In Service date.always a big estimate!! hope that helps!


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2755 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 16070 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 18):
I dont know what you mean. Almost certain Boeing wont make the 777W longer. I remember reading that Boeing said the 77W is about the longest they could make a 777. Also they would shoot themselves in the foot by threatening the 748I.

Some airlines have urged Boeing to stretch the 777 even further.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 15975 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 4):
re-wing the 777 (as Boeing have publically"suggested" they will). Y3 is very firmly on the back burner.
Quoting parapente (Reply 11):
Replying to post 5.No you are right, they have not made a decision.But a Boeing exec stated a couple of weeks ago that "the" option they were looking at was rewinging.Whether thats a 737/748 style rewing or a totally new one was not specified.(Clearly the GE90 would also need a facelift - for Rolls (200er only for legal reasons) its a straight TXWB of course).

That is only an option as they are going to wait to see how the -1000XWB fares. Its really as simple as that. The market has spoken loudly about "re-wings", "re-engine", etc.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6357 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 15530 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 22):
The market has spoken loudly about "re-wings", "re-engine", etc.

They sure have with the 737 and 320 series!



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 15479 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 12):
Off the top of my head, Airbus were the first to ever use composites to construct aircraft sections, they introduced digital fly-by-wire and they set the standard with the A300 for the "large twin" - I know the 747 was the biggest for a while, but even it didn’t introduce anything new. It was just a big version of a conventional jet.

Don't forget the 747 introduced the high-bypass turbofan. Conceivably, that is the one single greatest leap in fuel efficiency of the jet age.

Faro



The chalice not my son
25 Jacobin777 : ...the various iterations of the A330 didn't fare well before Airbus made the decision to go with the A350XWB. I think the Boeing 777 will share the
26 Daysleeper : I wasn't aware that Boeing designed the engine - I persumed that was down to the engineers at P & W etc.
27 faro : We agree; what I was aiming at was that for the 747 and the whole widebody generation in general, high-bypass was the critical enabling technology. B
28 Stitch : I expect the higher wing of the 747 compared to other commercial airliners in service at the time allowed the clearance necessary for such a design t
29 BMI727 : More or less, but it seems that the performance gains are somewhat diluted on the smaller plane, which (along with a healthy backlog) has helped keep
30 SolarFlyer22 : It would be great to see several nations and manufacturers come together to build a breakthrough BWB VLA. It will not happen for a long time if ever.
31 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Haha..-I was getting flack from other members about this...thanks mate.. ....
32 keesje : What we saw during the last decade is that the difference between actual versus specified performance has become pretty small. Windtunnel testing are
33 Packsonflight : I think that they will go for a midlife update on the 777 program rather than a clean sheet design, because they are DOW Jones company, and very much
34 Post contains images ken777 : I believe it will get back to the customers and what they are pushing for - and how hard they are pushing. On that side, major 737 customers (WN comes
35 JAAlbert : Jeez, will I even be alive to see it's maiden flight!? Yikes!
36 BMI727 : This is the reason (along with engineering resources) that they would go with a 777NG. Ideally, they would go with the Y3, but given the choice of be
37 Stitch : Unless that $2.5 billion upgrade won't bring in more than $2.5 billion in sales. Investors have not rioted over the 787 and 747-8 program cost overru
38 Post contains links and images keesje : 7 months ago I opened a thread on the 777-400NG. I assumed the NG would also include a 777-300NG and a 787-10 would cover 777-200ER replacement marke
39 planemaker : Some were... others were not. With FBW the handling characteristics can make any aircraft virtually handle the same. It won't be. Technology is advan
40 BoeEngr : I think we'll still be dealing with tubes and wings. Studies are showing passengers get very sick in BWBs. Passengers seated out from the center line
41 planemaker : While your point is the conventional view amongst most people on A.net, the facts are that tube and wings have reached their limits in terms of signi
42 BoeEngr : Why wouldn't it?
43 Packsonflight : Boeing is not spending much money on the program anyway. I think that the Japanease government came up with something like3.5 bn usd in aid for Fuji
44 planemaker : Because by then flt profiles will be such that it won't be an issue.
45 Post contains images BoeEngr : Hmmm... I think I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
46 PlanesNTrains : Yes, you are correct. -Dave
47 planemaker : Fair enough but I would be interested in knowing why you disagree. Remember, we are talking 15 years out from now.
48 BoeEngr : Because a BWB banks when it turns. And airplanes have to make turns. No amount of time is going to change that.
49 Post contains images planemaker : Yes, a BWB will bank when it turns but the angle of bank can easily be controlled so that "passengers seated out from the center line of the airplane
50 BoeEngr : Thank you for explaining your position. I still don't believe it based on the studies, research, and testing we've done to date and also, 15 years re
51 Post contains images planemaker : You are welcome. I assume that you are talking about the technical feasibility of BWB and not the flight handling characteristics. However... Boeing'
52 Post contains images BoeEngr : It's taking us roughly half that time to go with the wing and tube, which we have done many times before. Guilty as charged. With that said, if we do
53 hjulicher : I think from a business perspective in long term planning, this is a mistake, as Airbus and Boeing are only comparing themselves with one another. Th
54 planemaker : From a long term planning perspecitve, it isn't a mistake. You must bear in mind that the next NB design from A & B will probably be their last f
55 ArabAirX : The same is true of the Airbus A350 and 787. Both have racked up record orders. The CSeries promises much, as you have outlined. Where are the corres
56 oykie : How much would it cost to use the 787 wing, then reinforce it and use it on the 777 fuselage? I know Boeing flirted with an idea to take the 777 wing
57 Packsonflight : BWB will not be built because it involves to much risk. If the 787 program costs 10 bn usd (original estimate) with an overrun of 2-2 bn an BWB would
58 rheinwaldner : Basically it would mean that the aircraft during normal operation would only bank very slowly into turns. If that is all I don't see a big issue. It
59 Post contains images faro : If and when BWB becomes a reality, its first incarnation will most likely be a military freighter. Faro
60 Post contains images keesje : I think including all the complications, 2-3 year 700 aircraft compensations and production hick-ups few people know the real costs of the Dreamliner
61 Post contains images Stitch : If the Sonic Cruiser had burned 15% less fuel than a 767/A330, three of them would have been in the air yesterday on test flights. Markets change. Su
62 planemaker : Absolutely they could. No. The "plastic" parts replacing the "metal" parts are not maintenance intensive items. The military would pick up the tab. B
63 BMI727 : For the record, the B-2 is a sort of hybrid between a flying wing and a BWB. Probably quite a bit, but it isn't really that simple. They would be bet
64 tdscanuck : The 787 cockpit is already very close to the 777, by design, so it seems likely that they'd keep that going. Except for the minor detail that they ha
65 BoeEngr : Very, very true. The bulk of the changes, from a pilot perspective, are cosmetic. Changes were made to reflect the aircraft architecture (such as a r
66 BMI727 : Approximately how long will it take for a pilot to transition between a 777 and a 787? I doubt that airlines will dual qualify their pilots, but it i
67 BoeEngr : It's about 5 days of training.
68 ea772lr : If Boeing decided to go with a CFRP 777 with new CFRP wing and new engines, you think Boeing would use the nose of the 787?? Oh how I love the fronta
69 BoeEngr : I really don't have any insight to that but my guess is that the forward fuselage section will be different, but with some common/shared components.
70 planemaker : Not only that (design and materials across the board) but manufacturability as well.
71 keesje : If you look at BWB, flying wings, lifting bodies and the Sonic cruiser, its about wing and fuselage merging. The fuselage adding lift, the wing giving
72 Post contains images Stitch : Maybe they'll do something like the "Honeydew" concept from a few years back...
73 Post contains links tdscanuck : Take a look at this and tell me how they're merging wing and fuselage: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...sonic_cruiser/sonic_cruiser_04.jpg That
74 keesje : The lift distribution is spread out over the total aircraft contrary to a more conventional tube wing configurations. I do not state the SC is a BWB b
75 planemaker : The SC fuselage is a tube... period - just like all other Boeing aircraft. No its not. It is not even close.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Real Close-up 787 PAX Window Pics posted Wed Aug 15 2007 16:46:08 by NYC777
LCF2 Picking Up 787 Fuselage 5/9 @ IAB, CHS posted Wed May 9 2007 15:26:23 by IAD787
Who Are Lining Up To Cancel 787? posted Thu Oct 8 2009 08:22:52 by Cosmofly
Boeing 787 Production Plan Slides Up To 3 Months posted Tue Jul 21 2009 17:01:59 by SInGAPORE_AIR
787 Production Ramp-up - Progress Being Made? posted Mon Oct 20 2008 22:58:11 by OyKIE
787 Goes Gear Up! (pic) posted Mon Aug 11 2008 14:49:57 by IAD787
Biman Firms Up 777 / 787 Order, Signs MOU For 737s posted Tue Apr 22 2008 11:31:35 by Planemannyc
787 Backlog, Delivery Schedule And Ramp Up posted Mon Apr 14 2008 11:28:53 by Moo
Up To 125 787's For Delta?? posted Tue Aug 14 2007 03:24:42 by Jkj777
787 Parts Movement - Back Up Plan? posted Wed May 16 2007 19:17:06 by DeltaDAWG
LCF2 Picking Up 787 Fuselage 5/9 @ IAB, CHS posted Wed May 9 2007 15:26:23 by IAD787
Who Are Lining Up To Cancel 787? posted Thu Oct 8 2009 08:22:52 by Cosmofly
Boeing 787 Production Plan Slides Up To 3 Months posted Tue Jul 21 2009 17:01:59 by SInGAPORE_AIR
787 Production Ramp-up - Progress Being Made? posted Mon Oct 20 2008 22:58:11 by OyKIE
787 Goes Gear Up! (pic) posted Mon Aug 11 2008 14:49:57 by IAD787
Biman Firms Up 777 / 787 Order, Signs MOU For 737s posted Tue Apr 22 2008 11:31:35 by Planemannyc
787 Backlog, Delivery Schedule And Ramp Up posted Mon Apr 14 2008 11:28:53 by Moo
Up To 125 787's For Delta?? posted Tue Aug 14 2007 03:24:42 by Jkj777